Inside the war powers debate on Iran raging on Capitol Hill
Trump faces a May 1 deadline for congressional OK for continued action in Iran.
As Operation Epic Fury continues in Iran and President Donald Trump seeks a permanent end to hostilities, the president also faces a looming deadline for congressional authorization of the conflict -- that, if not granted, could terminate the operation.
On May 1, under the War Powers Resolution, Trump either must present a case that more time is needed to withdraw U.S. forces from the region or seek congressional approval to continue the conflict.
"This war of choice, this reckless and costly war, was entered into without any plan, any objective, any exit strategy, any public support and any approval of the United States Congress," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries argued on Thursday during debate on a war powers resolution.
Rep. Brian Mast, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, contends the war powers debate is "all pure politics" from Democrats -- arguing it's "a miscalculation to tell the military to end a war or a conflict or a battle or anything else."
Democratic leaders say those repeated efforts -- however redundant they may seem -- are likely to continue as long as the president's operation continues, drawing out the political debate on Capitol Hill.
"We are going to continue to advance War Powers resolutions in the weeks to come until we are able to successfully bring this reckless and costly war of choice in the Middle East to a close," Jeffries pledged.
So beyond the noise reverberating throughout the halls of Congress, what's the reality check behind the war powers resolution and its 60-day deadline, and how may it shape the president's actions in Iran?
What is the War Powers Resolution?
The War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed into law in the wake of the Vietnam War, includes several provisions aimed at keeping the president's military powers somewhat in check and Congress apprised of the president's military actions. So far, the Trump administration has seemingly complied with the law.
First, the War Powers Resolution does not grant the president authority to conduct military operations. That power is derived from Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
The war powers resolution, however, requires the president to notify Congress that he has initiated the use of military force within 48 hours. Trump met that requirement on March 2, writing Sen. Chuck Grassley in his role of president pro tempore.
"I write to apprise you of military action taken on February 28, 2026 against the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran," Trump wrote. "I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution."
That notification started a 60-day clock where the president may freely conduct military operations in the absence of a congressional declaration of war. But once that clock runs out, that power is automatically terminated -- unless Congress declares war or passes legislation authorizing the use of military force before the deadline.
This 60-day window is not a grant of authority to conduct hostilities but serves as a period for lawmakers to decide whether to address the unauthorized use of the military -- whether it's by passing an authorization for the use of military force, also known as an AUMF, or lawmakers decide to pass a war powers resolution ordering the hostilities to end.
What happens after the May 1 deadline?
While the deadline comes on May 1, the president may unilaterally certify in writing to Congress that the continued use of force is necessary to ensure the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region -- adding 30 days to the president's power to wage Operation Epic Fury. While Trump has not ordered any ground troops into Iran, aside from conducting a rescue mission, thousands of military personnel are staged in the region, and the U.S. continues to enforce a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.
While congressional Republicans have not yet scheduled any public hearings to debate the matter with Trump administration officials, the president's top advisers have briefed members of Congress in a classified setting on a rolling basis since the operation began.
Several members of the president's Cabinet are also on Capitol Hill this month testifying on the president's fiscal year 2027 budget request -- opening up opportunities for lawmakers to publicly engage with the administration.
Since taking the gavel, Speaker Mike Johnson has argued that the War Powers Resolution as a whole is unconstitutional.
"This might have made some sense in 1973, but I'm not even sure that this is constitutional," Johnson said in June after the U.S. bombed several nuclear sites in Iran. "Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument."
Related Topics
Popular Reads
ABC News Live